==============================  CFJ 3209  ==============================

    scshunt won the game in the above quoted message.


Caller:                                 Yally
Barred:                                 scshunt

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              TRUE



Called by Yally:                        13 May 2012 05:32:24 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         26 May 2012 01:56:50 GMT
Judged TRUE by G.:                      06 Jun 2012 16:32:33 GMT


Caller's Evidence:

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 1:09 AM, ais523 <callforjudgement@yahoo.co.uk>wrote:

> On Sun, 2012-05-13 at 01:04 -0400, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 12:44 AM, omd <c.ome.xk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I transfer 1 ruble to my Speaker Account.
> > >
> > > I cause the President to flip the Speed to Fast.
> > >
> >
> > Oh, that passed.
> >
> > I transfer 2 rubles to my Speaker Account.
> >
> > I cause the President to create a promise with the following text: { I
> > deregister. }
> >
> > I cause the President to transfer the aforementioned promise to me.
> >
> > I cash the aforementioned promise.
> >
> > The following is a Victory Announcement: I satisfied the Winning
> > Condition of Anarchy in this message.
> Doesn't this cause the President to win, rather than you?
> --
> ais523


Gratuitous Arguments by scshunt:

R2344 says:
      If a player causes the President to cease to be a player, then
      that player satisfies the Victory Condition of Anarchy.

Nowhere does the rule require direct causation. There is also no other
use of the word 'cause' in the rules which can be attributed
similarly, except perhaps in the definition of Executor and in the
rule indicating that players SHOULD NOT cause Heroic Titles to be
revoked. While the word 'cause' is also used in the action sense of 'I
cause X to do Y', I believe that this is a different sense of the word
and, since 'cause' is not specifically defined in this context, should
take a more broad definition than that specifically used in certain
circumstances in the Ruleset.

Thus it was ultimately my sequence of actions which caused the
President's actions (and surely there can be no dispute that I caused
the President to create the promise, the key event underpinning the
victory) and eir ultimate deregistration. Accordingly, I believe that
I am to be accorded the win.


Judge G.'s Arguments:

First, I'll tackle the "trivial" objection to this case.

Yally raised this case questioning "the above quoted message".  There
are actually several quoted messages, nested.  Full details, including
timestamps, are included in each sub-message, so any of them could be
the "questioned document", including the Victory Announcement.  The
question is, did e include sufficient context to target the victory
announcement as what, among the nested quotes, e was explicitly

Zefram, in CFJ 1690, found that "explicitly identifying the document" to
halt a self-ratification must fundamentally identify the matter at hand,
and gives examples, such as "Proposal 6000 was rejected".  I find that
Yally, by including "won the game" in eir CFJ, successfully identifies
the component sub-message (e.g. the proper quoted message) with
reasonable context to halt the self-ratification of the win

I'll also note that it is for the good of the game to err (a little) on
the side of halting self-ratification, not that I believe this does so.

Now, the tricky part.

"Cause" is used in the ruleset in many contexts.  In most places, it
it identifies players as causal agents; but in some cases the causes are
more autonomous:  "Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change
causes that change to be void..."  In reality, a result or situation
is the sum of many causes.  In CFJ 1890, I attempted to sort through
some of this ambiguity by Aristotelean means, setting aside formal
or material causes (e.g. the fact that the ruleset exists in a
particular form, or the fact that electrons moved through a wire).  The
final result of CFJ 1890 is that, in Agora, we should assume causality
rests with the closest immediate "final" cause; that is, the most
immediate (real, first-class) person who sends a message.  In other
words, unless the ruleset explicitly says otherwise, the Executor of a
message (R2170) is the most immediate "cause" of that message's effects.

In the current case, it becomes more complicated due to the Promise
mechanism.  The Victory Condition reads "If a player causes the
President to cease to be a player..." and (leaving aside the creation
and existence of the promise as a material effect) the chain of events
is scshunt message "causes" President's message to be published which
"causes" deregistration.

Once again, there are multiple causal agents.  BUT.  Here, I interpret
that the existence of "executor" language in R2170, as well as the
precedent of CFJ 1890, leads us to classify The President's promise and
resulting message as a material or formal cause (a construct of the
ruleset), and say (as does scshunt in eir gratuitous arguments) that
the most pressing and immediate cause here is scshunt's message, as
caused ("final cause") by scshunt.

Therefore, scshunt won the game by causing the president to cease to be
a player.  TRUE.